Israeli company produces cancer vaccine, clinical trials underway

Fuck You you Piece of Crap!

You are the last person from whom anyone would like to take any info about drugs (and cancer cures and health!)

Of course cancer could have been cured already

But, it is not because motherfuckres like you! Are still alive!.. get that fucking twat?

It's all for MONEY you fucking idiot.

Fuck you!
(and your genes as well)

Done a lot of work in cancer research have you?
 


Fuck You you Piece of Crap!

You are the last person from whom anyone would like to take any info about drugs (and cancer cures and health!)

Of course cancer could have been cured already

But, it is not because motherfuckres like you! Are still alive!.. get that fucking twat?

It's all for MONEY you fucking idiot.

Fuck you!
(and your genes as well)

r42RBth.jpg
 
I love all of the pharmaceutical company hate/conspiracy theories online. But it is these same idiots who slam pharmaceutical companies that benefit from the billions of dollars invested each year to develop new treatments and cures.

Developing new drugs is incredibly expensive. Financing the development of a new drug and all of the failed drugs that don't get FDA approval (or fail much earlier, e.g., hit to lead, lead optimization, pre-clinical, phase 1/2/3) is incredibly expensive. Drugs that do make it to the market have to fund all research and development. So, yes drugs are expensive. Especially when you consider the narrow periods of exclusivity that the FDA provides (if the drug gets Orange Booked) and the soon to follow attempts at patent invalidation from generic manufacturers.

Here is a clue for you conspiracy nuts out there:
If it was easy to cure cancer/HIV/etc, it would have been done already. Take it from someone who has worked in the pharmaceutical/biotech industry for close to a decade developing new treatments for various cancers.


It does, of course, take a considerable amount of money to bring a new drug to market. Current estimates put the cost at $350 million before a drug is presented to the FDA for approval. Moreover, if use of the drug becomes associated with undisclosed - or inadequately disclosed - adverse effects, the manufacturer might eventually be on the hook for billions of dollars in litigation.

But none of the above erases the fact that drug manufacturers are driven by profit. That in itself is fine, of course. But they often employ questionable practices to stack the deck in their favor.

For example, consider testosterone treatments.

Back in 1999, Unimed Pharma had a nifty drug called AndroGel. The company was trying to get it approved and claimed there were 1 million men with hypogonadism, the condition the drug was created to treat. The FDA cleared it in 2000.

After Unimed was granted FDA approval to hawk its gel to the public, it announced that there were actually 4 to 5 million men with the condition. Fine. Maybe Unimed got the original estimate wrong. That's a huge difference, but it happens.

In 2003, the company launched a huge push for its gel and announced that the number of men who needed it was now 20 million.

Around that time, Unimed - it's has since been absorbed by Abbott Labs - and other companies selling testosterone treatments figured, "Wait a second. Why in the world are we limiting our market to dudes with hypogonadism? Why not just sell it to every schmuck with low testosterone levels?" (Never mind the fact that testosterone levels drop naturally starting at age 30.)

And so "low-t therapy" was born.

Meanwhile, the Endocrine Society was saying, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on a second. You goofballs are trying to get any guy showing low testosterone levels to get hooked on your products. You should only be selling them to guys who have been diagnosed with hypogonadism."

The manufacturers basically gave them the finger and kept going.

Fast forward to today. Men who have taken the drugs - or rubbed the gel on their shoulders - are starting to drop dead from heart attacks and strokes. That sort of thing makes the FDA look bad, so it has promised to look into things a little more closely (better late than never, I guess).

Here's the point...

People don't trust drug companies because drug companies have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. The example I used above is just one among countless others featuring everything from transvaginal mesh, Propecia, and SSRIs to Risperdal, Yaz, and select IUDs.

And even that's just scratching the surface. I could go on and on, but will spare readers the gory details.

Saying that a cancer cure hasn't been released to the U.S. public because drugmakers are motivated to maximize profit may indeed be conspiracy nutbaggery. But it may also be true.

If I ran Pfizer, you can bet I'd collude with other drug companies to make sure we squeezed as many dollars from the public as possible before the generics swept in.
 
Saying that a cancer cure hasn't been released to the U.S. public because drugmakers are motivated to maximize profit may indeed be conspiracy nutbaggery. But it may also be true.

If I ran Pfizer, you can bet I'd collude with other drug companies to make sure we squeezed as many dollars from the public as possible before the generics swept in.

Why is so hard to understand that pharma is just like any other business? ... What is so difficult in realizing that pharma is just a business?
They operate just like you guys (SEO, Adwords, Targeted Marketing... etc.).

Are you dumb?

Even if there is a cure they are not going to sell it just like that. First, they will make sure that drug isn't too good in fighting cancer or whatever.
Why?
Because if they push a drug that is too effective, they will lose fucking money.

Do you know life time customer value?

Let's say you do good money. Will you kill your cash cow? Of course NOT.

There are no conspiracy theories, this is just business.

Guys, weak up.
 
Why is so hard to understand that pharma is just like any other business? ... What is so difficult in realizing that pharma is just a business?
They operate just like you guys (SEO, Adwords, Targeted Marketing... etc.).

Are you dumb?

Even if there is a cure they are not going to sell it just like that. First, they will make sure that drug isn't too good in fighting cancer or whatever.
Why?
Because if they push a drug that is too effective, they will lose fucking money.

Do you know life time customer value?

Let's say you do good money. Will you kill your cash cow? Of course NOT.

There are no conspiracy theories, this is just business.

Guys, weak up.

So why doesn't an upstart pharma company find and sell the cure? They'd make a lot more money doing that than trying to compete in a crowded treatment market.

If there was really a cure you don't think Steve Jobs had enough money to pay for it? Wouldn't it have been worth his while just to buy out one of the pharma companies to make sure he got cured?

Sorry but you're delusional.
 
Done a lot of work in cancer research have you?
Yes I have.

Additionally I have studied this...

710LxvuZ88L._SL1428_.jpg


And this

Biochemistry-Stryer-Lubert-9780716720096.jpg


My grandfather and father died of lung cancer (SCLC). I'm genetically predisposed to that shit.

This is my niche (but I don't do money out of it...)

Know two people who are fighting skin cancer stage IV. By regular medicine standards they should be stiff year ago (at least...).

They are still here because they said fuck of to the radiotherapy (chemotherapy doesn't work it that case).

So, what do you want to know?
 
So why doesn't an upstart pharma company find and sell the cure? They'd make a lot more money doing that than trying to compete in a crowded treatment market.

If there was really a cure you don't think Steve Jobs had enough money to pay for it? Wouldn't it have been worth his while just to buy out one of the pharma companies to make sure he got cured?

Sorry but you're delusional.
No it would not be worth it. I know Steve Jobs was wealthy, but comparing to all that money from all over the world his money is a joke.
 
No it would not be worth it. I know Steve Jobs was wealthy, but comparing to all that money from all over the world his money is a joke.
Where are all of the pharma companies on this list and where is Apple?

You also didn't answer my first question. Why wouldn't a pharma company that currently does not have a cancer treatment drug release the cure so that they could almost instantly get 100% market share?

Additionally why wouldn't pharma companies make sure their cancer treatment kept people alive? They'd maximize their revenue if they kept people alive but dependent on the treatment. Instead those customers die and they lose out on revenue. It doesn't make a whole lot of financial sense to allow all of your customers to die.
 
Where are all of the pharma companies on this list and where is Apple?

You also didn't answer my first question. Why wouldn't a pharma company that currently does not have a cancer treatment drug release the cure so that they could almost instantly get 100% market share?
Nice try lol.

Apple is Apple. Steve Jobs is Steve Jobs (was...)

To answer your question, I will use very simple example.

Let's say that you have created a cure for obesity. It works perfectly. They take a pill and after 10 days they look like a nice and healthy bitch.

All it take is just ONE pill and you get in shape. And you are done with weight lose and all that shit.

Is this a good business in your opinion?
 
Nice try lol.

Apple is Apple. Steve Jobs is Steve Jobs (was...)

To answer your question, I will use very simple example.

Let's say that you have created a cure for obesity. It works perfectly. They take a pill and after 10 days they look like a nice and healthy bitch.

All it take is just ONE pill and you get in shape. And you are done with weight lose and all that shit.

Is this a good business in your opinion?

Of course it is a good treatment. I could charge $100,000 per pill and make more money than my competitors could ever dream of making even across 3 years of miserable treatment.

Every single person would flock to my business and I'd go from 0% marketshare to 100% marketshare in a huge industry almost overnight.
 
Of course it is a good treatment. I could charge $100,000 per pill and make more money than my competitors could ever dream of making even across 3 years of miserable treatment.

Every single person would flock to my business and I'd go from 0% marketshare to 100% marketshare in a huge industry almost overnight.
If you really believe this could happen I think you're delusional.
BTW, good business need loyal customers.
 
Why would pharma companies knowingly let their customers die?

They can't make any money off of someone if they are dead.

If there is really some crazy conspiracy they would keep them alive and dependent forever.
 
Exactly!

Now you talk.

With exception there is no conspiracy.

Are you playing with me? :>

People die from cancer.

That is a very poor business model for pharma companies as dead people cannot pay for medical treatment.

Because of this, they would make much more money if those people did not die. It would be in their best interest to keep all of their customers alive forever.

If they had a cure for cancer they would be able to do this (keep customers alive and dependent on the drug) and make a lot of money.

They do not do this, so you can clearly deduce that they do not have a cure for cancer. If they did have a cure for cancer they would be using it to keep people alive and dependent. But they don't, people die from cancer.

Therefore we can reach the conclusion that you are an idiot.
 
Therefore we can reach the conclusion that you are an idiot.
Ohh.. why you are getting nervous so early? We haven't even started yet :)


What I'm going to say won't be taken seriously probably. But fuck it. Maybe it will save your dumb life one day.

Cancer itself isn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is treatment (chemotherapy, radiation and other variations).

I'm not going to give you links here, but you can easily find necessary studies and data.

People who are not exposed to the chemotherapy or radiation live longer than people who have received treatment.

Unfortunately, most folks will get that treatment because they believe it's the only way to survive.

In reality chemotherapy or radiation is the worst shit patient can get.

All of us have cancer cells and tumors. They are growing, then shrinking and so on. In majority of cases treatment with chemo etc. would not be necessary. But...

What your GP tells you?

"See me in 3 months" (Maybe I will find some shit in your body and then get you one treatment or another)

So you wait.

You see it's not about your health. They tell you to visit them because the are conditioned to find some shit (even out of thin air...) and sell you fucking drugs.

All GPs are drug dealers. They go to school, then they are trained to sell drugs. Modern "medicine" is not medicine anymore.

So, they just create the market for themselves. They know people are scared to death so they push drugs. It's simple.

Do you know that your gov paid millions for vaccines for swine flu that never have been used? They took your money and paid for a batch of vaccines and only 8% was actually used.

There never will be cure for cancer, because there is no need for one.

Sure, if your body is totally fucked up, and they will diagnose cancer you may not get out of it happy. However, in most cases you will be better if staying away from regular treatments.

Chemotherapy and radiation is SLOWLY turning people into dead meat. They could offer you power chemo treatment, but you would die in a couple of hours (no money for them, let's better keep that sucker alive..).

So they do it slowly. That's it.
 
I found this book interesting (The Cancer Industry):

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Industry-Ralph-W-Moss/dp/1881025098/]Amazon.com: The Cancer Industry (9781881025092): Ralph W. Moss: Books[/ame]
 
So, you studied a couple of undergraduate level biochemistry books.... Cute.

Incidentally, I used the Stryer book for a class that I took as an undergraduate.

Yes I have.

Additionally I have studied this...

710LxvuZ88L._SL1428_.jpg


And this

Biochemistry-Stryer-Lubert-9780716720096.jpg


My grandfather and father died of lung cancer (SCLC). I'm genetically predisposed to that shit.

This is my niche (but I don't do money out of it...)

Know two people who are fighting skin cancer stage IV. By regular medicine standards they should be stiff year ago (at least...).

They are still here because they said fuck of to the radiotherapy (chemotherapy doesn't work it that case).

So, what do you want to know?
 
So why doesn't an upstart pharma company find and sell the cure? They'd make a lot more money doing that than trying to compete in a crowded treatment market.

If there was really a cure you don't think Steve Jobs had enough money to pay for it? Wouldn't it have been worth his while just to buy out one of the pharma companies to make sure he got cured?

Sorry but you're delusional.

Playing devils advocate:

-Steve Jobs was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer 20 years before he died. The average life expectancy for that type of cancer at his time of diagnosis was 3-6 months. That is rare - REALLY rare. He was doing something right. He was never doing chemo or traditional treatment - yet he outlived the average life expectancy by 40x conservatively.

- The official story is that he died of complications from cancer - not cancer. Many doctors have come out to say that...

- He most likely died due to an immune deficiency related to both his cancer as well as his liver transplant two years prior due to metastasis of the liver. A liver transplant alone is extremely dangerous. He had to take drugs so his body wouldn't reject it, those drugs compromised his immune system - combine that with cancer and you've got a cocktail for sure death.

Now if you really want to go crazy...

-"Mr Jobs had bad-tempered run-ins with Barack Obama and his advisers, including a meeting last autumn when he told Mr Obama: "You're headed for a one-term presidency."

Mr Jobs told him that the US was too unfriendly to business, and that companies would rather build factories in China than in America, where they were frustrated by "regulations and unnecessary costs".


Most likely irrelevant, but I wouldn't go out of my way to make enemies with said people.

Fuck it -let's go off the deep end...

Let's say I did have the cure for cancer. Maybe 200 people know about it. Maybe less. I'm not sure what to do with it yet.

But I do know that my company nets $14.5 Billion a year, and a big chunk of that is selling cancer "treatment". And I happen to own Pfizer. Steve Jobs was worth $5 billion...

...Maybe I tell him to fuck off - 1/3 of my annual revenue for a cure - pshh - plus he's the perfect candidate to find a way to take credit for my shit - I can see it now "Oh, one last thing - cancer, yeah, we've got that cured".

Or maybe I tell him that for $2.5 billion he's going to "die" as far as the public is concerned - but in reality he's going to disappear.

Last I checked there are 733 people worth over $2.5 billion on the planet, 21% of US citizens die of cancer, that's 155 billionaires - and they're old, so I can cash in within 10 years or so - let's say I sell them the cure at a billion a pop - $155 billion from the rich - $145 billion from "treating" the masses over the next 10 years.

Hmm... I've only got another 20 years on this planet, what to do? Do I sell my cure to the .000001% or do I give up my rebill on the unwashed masses? Why not both?

I don't claim to believe anything I've mentioned. I'm just saying that there may or may not be (and I don't know) economic incentives in place to keep any known cures for cancer to a privileged few.
 
Ohh.. why you are getting nervous so early? We haven't even started yet :)


What I'm going to say won't be taken seriously probably. But fuck it. Maybe it will save your dumb life one day.

Cancer itself isn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is treatment (chemotherapy, radiation and other variations).

I'm not going to give you links here, but you can easily find necessary studies and data.

People who are not exposed to the chemotherapy or radiation live longer than people who have received treatment.

Unfortunately, most folks will get that treatment because they believe it's the only way to survive.

In reality chemotherapy or radiation is the worst shit patient can get.

All of us have cancer cells and tumors. They are growing, then shrinking and so on. In majority of cases treatment with chemo etc. would not be necessary. But...

What your GP tells you?

"See me in 3 months" (Maybe I will find some shit in your body and then get you one treatment or another)

So you wait.

You see it's not about your health. They tell you to visit them because the are conditioned to find some shit (even out of thin air...) and sell you fucking drugs.

All GPs are drug dealers. They go to school, then they are trained to sell drugs. Modern "medicine" is not medicine anymore.

So, they just create the market for themselves. They know people are scared to death so they push drugs. It's simple.

Do you know that your gov paid millions for vaccines for swine flu that never have been used? They took your money and paid for a batch of vaccines and only 8% was actually used.

There never will be cure for cancer, because there is no need for one.

Sure, if your body is totally fucked up, and they will diagnose cancer you may not get out of it happy. However, in most cases you will be better if staying away from regular treatments.

Chemotherapy and radiation is SLOWLY turning people into dead meat. They could offer you power chemo treatment, but you would die in a couple of hours (no money for them, let's better keep that sucker alive..).

So they do it slowly. That's it.

Holly ramblings of an idiot.

You are also an arrogant idiot, calling people names for asking you a question.
In 10 paragraphs you wrote there, you cannot even explain simple things, let alone discuss biochemistry you studied so thoroughly.

There are some points in there that could indeed be a logical explanation of things, but the way wrote all that, makes it just retarded.